Christopher Jon Bjerknes: Sliced and Diced

Prefatory Note

Apparently Bjerknes believes that myself and Lionaxe are (or rather
could be) the same person: that is untrue and should have been evident
from the previous responses to him as our writing styles, native
languages and specialist areas of study are completely different.
Bjerknes claims that I; Karl Radl, seek to ’convert’; a strange word to
use given that it ironically suggests that Bjerknes elevates his beliefs to
the status of unquestionable religious dogma, people at VNN and
Stormfront to ’pro-jewish positions’. I find this somewhat ironic for an
individual who in an interview with jewish anti-feminist and general
conspiratorial loon Henry Makow claimed to have some of that jewish
holy ichor flowing through his veins.

I might point out that firstly Bjerknes assumes that anything he believes
is an anti-jewish position which is obviously utterly subjective as much
as whether one views Karl Marx as a genius or a moron. The problem
with his position; as Bjerknes would know if he could manage to muster
a proverbial ounce of critical thought, is that it assumes that a subjective
position is an objective one and therefore places the person with a
supposedly wholly objective position in the realm of deities along with
Jupiter, Yahweh and Baal. Bjerknes would do well to remember that
unfortunately he is not omniscient and in fact has a habit of lying
outright; as the reader can for example ascertain for themselves from the
fact that Bjerknes simply refuses to reply en pointe while claiming to do
so on the central issues that form the basis for his claims, as well as
being apparently unable to perform basic research functions like critical
source and document analysis.

Secondly I might point out that Bjerknes; in line with his small coterie
of whirling dervishes, imputes a conspiratorial motive by implying that I
am some kind of jew or friend of the jews because I disagree with him.
Or perhaps Bjerknes wishes to impute that I am an agent of the
Illuminati, the shape-changing reptilians and/or the Elders of Zion

because I disagree with him? Of course he wishes to do so, because
Bjerknes; in his periods of borderline lucidity, well knows that he has
been caught with his trousers down and he; like many a member of the
tribe, cannot stand the egoistic loss of admitting he can; or even could,
be wrong.

Oh dear have I jabbed a pin into a particularly sensitive boil
Christopher? I think I might have.

After all Bjerknes’ sole claim to any kind of fame is his ’work’; if one
can call it that, on Einstein which has been laughed out of the room by
just about everyone with a triple digit IQ. Oh and as for the pseudonyms
Christopher my dear child: I am afraid some of us have fairly significant
careers and jobs to which we attend and unlike you we aren’t so
ineffective and insignificant that we would be unnoticed or un-
persecuted by those who; like you, have Yahweh’s divine ichor in their
veins and form the ’power behind the throne’ in the countries in which
we live and work.

Karl Radl,

Christopher Jon Bjerknes: Sliced and Diced

This is the third reply; by me, to Christopher Jon Bjerknes on the
matters pertaining to Einstein, relativity and the charges of plagiarism
related to the formentioned. In the first rebuttal (1) of Bjerknes critique I
painstakingly clarified many of his inaccurate descriptions as I went
through his central assumptions and claims regarding relativity and
Einstein. In the second reply (2) I noted on the absence of an on-point
rebuttal by Bjerknes. Now he has issued a post on his blog aimed at my
previous retort, called; ”Refuting the Jewish Propagandist "Lionaxe"
"Point-by-Point”. (3)

Naturally, given the title of his latest reply I expected to actually recieve
a point-by-point critique, however that is not what Bjerknes offered.
Let's examine his latest effort nevertheless and see what he felt

compelled to answer; or to claim, this time around.

”The Jewish apologist[s] calling itself "Lionaxe" and/or "Karl Radl",
which entity haunts the message boards at VNN and Stormfront
attempting to convert those opposed to Jewish propaganda to pro-
Jewish positions, issued a response to my blog of 6 February 2009. I did
not answer it until now, as it is so obviously composed of sophistry and
falsehoods that I thought it unnecessary to refute it, given that those who
could understand what it said would know that it was based upon
sophistry and falsehoods.”

As expected Bjerknes starts off with irrelevant and childish polemics
excusing himself from having taken his sweet time to reply with the
reason being that my previous rebuttals were dense with sophistry and
falsehoods. As a curiosa, he appears to have an affinity for the word
'sophistry', as (in my experience) do many of conspiracy theorists and
garden variety cranks.

”The opening comments of the blog "Semitic Controversies" attempt to
change the subject from Einstein's plagiarism to whether or not Prof.
Winterberg has corresponded with "Lionaxe" and whether or not
"Lionaxe" could have or should have quoted Winterberg directly, rather
than put its, "Lionaxe's", self-contradictory words into the good
professor's mouth. Such a diversionary tactic, as well as the "teamwork"
it embodies, are typical of disinformation specialists.”

This fashion of word salad is typical of Bjerknes' style. He's not really
making any sense, considering that I had simply stated that when asked
Winterberg said he didn't not rely on Bjerknes for the accuracy of his
work wether or not he had cited him in one instance was noted by me to
be a separate issue. I mentioned that Bjerknes only really brought his
name into the fold as an appeal for authority, as if it proved him correct
where the facts demonstrably did not.

And for the record, Winterberg does not agree with Bjerknes that his
work proves Einstein plagiarized or nostrified Hilbert:

”My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that
Einstein copied from Hilbert.” (4)

Winterberg recognizes the contribution to GR of Grossman, Hilbert and
Einstein. Why would he do that if he agreed with Bjerknes that Einstein
plagiarised Hilbert?

Bjerknes goes on to state the following:

”The value of my work and my expertise on the subject of Albert
Einstein and the history of the development of the theory of relativity
has been gratefully acknowledged by the prominent and innovative
physicists Prof. Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg of the University of Nevada,
Reno, and Prof. Dr. Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov, former Vice President
of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. If I had made the mistakes
wrongfully attributed to me on the "Stormfront" message boards, these
renowned scientists would not have relied upon me and my work. Prof.
Logunov has published several books and articles which discredit the
views of this "LionAxe" regarding Einstein and Minkowski's plagiarism
of Poincare's theory of relativity and space-time, some of which appear
for free on the internet”

Here he's hinting to Logunov in that the latter is in agreement with
Bjerknes that Einstein had plagiarised relativity and space-time in
general. Wether or not Bjerknes ment SR specifically, I think he should
know that his ”supporter” obviously doesn't agree with his take on GR:

”The analysis, undertaken in Sections 1 and 2, shows that Einstein and
Hilbert inependently discovered the gravitational field equations. Their
pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result. Nobody
"nostrified" the other. So no “belated decision in the Einstein–Hilbert
priority dispute”, about which [Corry, Renn, and Stachel] wrote, can be
taken. Moreover, the very Einstein–Hilbert dispute never took place.

All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize

their names in the title of the gravitational field equations. But general
relativity is Einstein’s theory.” (5)

In the paper that regards Poincaré more specifically, (6) Logunov offers
his arguments on behalf of priority for Poincaré regarding SR. Yet
Bjerknes didn't simply tell us that Logunov merely argued the priority of
SR belonging to Poincaré, but also that he was in agreement that
Einstein and Minkowski plagiarised Poincaré which is a completely
different claim and one I haven't seen Logunov make. It's another thing
that is typical for Bjerknes: he makes the case of priority
interchangeable with plagiarism. Furthermore Logunov's understanding
of relativity shows a splinter when he tries to explain the Sagnac Effect
and the Twin Paradox with the relativistic mechanics of Poincaré which
did not have room or usage of relativistic corrections (without them, the
GPS for example, would not function as it does today, i.e correctly!)

In any case, Bjerknes argued that Winterberg and Logunov agreed with
his work which showed Einstein to be a plagiarist. Having checked the
work and statements of Bjerknes’ given authorities: this is an outright
lie. Not only do they not agree with Bjerknes on this but Logunov even
stated that GR is Einstein's theory.

Bjerknes: when you're in a hole please stop digging.

”Now on to the self aggrandizing and ridiculous commentary of the
Jewish propagandist calling itself "Lionaxe". "Lionaxe" again
misrepresents my words by asserting that I stated that Poincare was the
first person, among all others, to state the Principle of Relativity (PoR);
when in fact I stated that Poincare was the first only between Einstein
and Poincare, and that countless others had stated it before Poincare.
In fact, I demonstrated through direct quotation that many others had
stated the PoR before Poincare in my book Albert Einstein: The
Incorrigible Plagiarist and again in my book The Manufacture and Sale
of Saint Einstein (see pp. 1950-1958).

"Lionaxe" then proceeds to misrepresent the PoR as if it were in

contradiction to, and incompatible with, Poincare's ether theories.
"Lionaxe" falsely claims without proof that "Poincare maintained a
preferred inertial frame". In the context of the PoR, this would mean
that the inertial frame of the ether of Poincare, presumably the
quiescent ether of Lorentz, violated the PoR and could therefore be
detected by experiments; in that the laws of this one inertial reference
frame differed from those of others, or all others.”

Again, it is clear that Bjerknes is not really replying to what I clairified
for him in my first rebuttal, regarding the differences between Poincaré's
and Einstein's work, which followed after Bjerknes had stated the
following:

”Logunov and I have already refuted this "LionAxe's" nonsense.
Poincare's PoR is the same as Einstein's plagiarized version.”

I explained at some length the very well known and obvious differences
between Einstein's and Poincaré's work on relativity. To mentioned a
couple of aspects, Poincaré's paper "Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron"
(1906), on the Lorentz contraction, deals through dynamic explanations.

However due to Einstein it was established that it is inherently
kinematical. Poincaré also implies that the speed of light is isotropic
exclusively in a unique frame, as is easily deduced from Lorentz’s
theory (for that, see his explanation of Michelson's experiment where
the speed of light is c+v or c-v in the two opposite directions). (7) But
yes, Poincaré does indeed disclose the modern form of the Lie algebra
of Lorentz group, Lorentz transformation, velocity addition theorem.
But most importantly, Poincaré neglects analysis of the relativity of
simultaneity, it also neglects analysis of the inertia of energy. Poincaré
also persisted with holding a difference between the effect of contraction
of moving bodies, along the direction of relative motion, and the notion
of relativity of simultaneity, which follows from the idea of a local time.
He had pegged down physical importance, meaning to the first effect
while clearly negating the second one as a mathematical artifice.

However, while I do not wish to simply repeat all that I wrote in my first
retort (which Bjerknes still ignored at equal length in his following
replies), I will comment (and probably repeat myself) further on this
matter.

Bjerknes denies that Poincaré worked by the premise of a
privileged/preferred frame of reference:

”"Lionaxe" quotes Poincare's 1902 critique of Lorentz as if in support
of its contentions regarding the PoR. In fact, Poincare was there
dismissing aspects of Lorentz' theory, in particular the notion that the
ether represents a preferred frame of reference at rest in absolute space.
Poincare's theory instead refers to the fixed stars, and/or the ether at
rest relative to itself, as inertial reference frames, and Poincare refers to
bodies "fixed" to these frames of reference, resting with respect to them,
but Poincare expressly excludes the concepts of absolute space and a
preferred reference frame with respect to the laws of mechanics and
electrodynamics. The reference frame at rest with respect to the fixed
stars is no more or less "superfluous" to such a Metaphysical PoR than
is the ether, and yet it is observed and does not violate it.”

Poincaré did indeed continue to believe in the existence of a privileged
frame; i.e the immobile aether, and that it was a crucial part as he based
his predictions on it. I quoted Poincaré himself as proof of this, which
Bjerknes simply ignores. It is clearly documented by what he said in the
talk at the 1904 St. Louis Congress of Arts and Science:

”The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical
phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an
observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we
have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we
are carried along in such a motion . . .

The most remarkable example of this new mathematical physics is,
beyond contradiction, Maxwell’s electro-magnetic theory of light. We
know nothing of the ether, how its molecules are disposed, whether they

attract or repel each other; but we know that this medium transmits at
the same time the optical perturbations; we know that this transmission
should be made conformably to the general principles of mechanics, and
that suffices us for the establishment of the equations of the
electromagnetic field . . .

Perhaps, likewise, we should construct a whole new mechanics, of
which we only succeed in catching a glimpse, where inertia increasing
with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an impassable limit.
The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain a first
approximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so that
we should still find the old dynamics under the new.” (8)

Still stuck on the ether of classical mechanics Poincaré said:

”Does an aether exist, the reason why we believe in an aether is simple.
If light comes from a distant star and takes many years to reach us, it is
during its travel no longer near the star, but not yet near the Earth,
nevertheless, it must be somewhere and supported by a material
medium.” (9)

This paper of Poincaré’s; which got published in June 1905,
(10) predominantely deals with Lorentz’s paper of 1904 both welcoming
it and providing corrections. It mused onward about constant external
forces applied to deformable electrons in a manner consistent with the
obselete heading of the given aether. And one of Poncairé's hypotheses
at the ”La Mécanique Nouvelle” Göttingen lecture was that a body
which is in translatory motion experiences a change of deformation in
the direction of motion. So still; after about four years post Einstein's
initial paper on this matter, he clearly didn't understand or accept that
length contraction was a consequence of Einstein's two postulates. If
there was anyone partly lost in his own methaphysical philosophy of
science: it was Poincaré.

On the one hand he very often critiqued the stationary ether of classical
mechanics, but at the same time was unable to do away with it himself.

He continously brought such a premise into his work and left what ever
doubts he had about his own work and others in his philosophical
lectures on the metaphysical possibilities, which is where he at times
hinted that an ether might one day not be necessary at all. Yet he was
never able to remove it himself. His confusion is perhaps best observed
in his lecture from 1900: (11) where he stated the need for a stationary
ether to; among other things, properly explain aberration. Shortly
thereafter he stated that only ”some” kind of ether was needed. In his
paper in 1902: (12) he included the necessity of an ether to do away
with absolute rotations.

Einstein completely discarded the aether as he predicted and theorized
that the expressions of the laws of physics should be same/similar for
any inertial frame. Also; as mentioned before, his meaning of "new
kinematics" meant that time and space measured (in differing inertial
systems) were on the exact same footing. This while Poincaré still
purported somehow (it wasn't an absolutist belief in ether/aether, but
nevertheless his assumptions tells us there was a base premise of it) in
an aether. Poincaré didn't manage to physically exclude the aether from
his actual work, as he viewed it as the privileged reference-frame
wherein "true" space and time were defined. Hence the consequence of
his work was that the speed of light wasn't the same in all inertial frames
regardless of his methaphysical rhethoric elsewhere.

In the first page of his paper "Sur la dynamique de l'électron", he
expresses the relativity principle as follows, noted by Levy in 1996 :

"It appears that the impossibility of observing the absolute motion of the
Earth is a general law of nature. We are naturally led to assume this
law which we will refer to as the Relativity postulate." (13)

At the end of the 7th chapter; speaking of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction (real and not reciprocal), he affirms:

”Therefore, the hypothesis of Lorentz (contraction) is the only one
which is compatible with the impossibility of bringing the absolute

inertial frame to the fore.”

So it is clear that for Poincaré absolute motion existed. Besides the
Lorentz contraction implies this absolute motion. Indeed; if a rod really
contracts when it passes from one inertial frame to another, it is because
there is a hierarchy between the different inertial frames (and not an
equivalence). And therefore, the theory of Poincaré tries to reconcile
two incompatible notions: the relativity principle on the one hand and
the existence of a preferred inertial frame on the other hand.

Poincaré did not manage to derive aberration constant from PoR and
certainly not prior to 1906. Einstein did in his first relativity-paper
however. So Bjerknes is thoroughly confused about the origins and
contemporary signification of relativity and spacetime physics as well as
between local and real time. As Lorentz (who incidentally was one of
those most familiar with Poncairé's work and close friend of his) stated:

”I introduced the conception of local time . . . but I never thought that
this had anything to do with real time. This real time for me was still
represented by the older classical notion of absolute time . . . There
existed for me only one true time. I considered my time transformation
only as a heuristic working hypothesis. So, the theory of relativity is
really solely Einstein’s work.” (14)

The difference between the relativity theories of Poincaré and Einstein is
an objective one in a historical sense, although it also springs from
epistemological considerations.

As a relevant note of curiosa: it was Poincaré (and Marie Curíe) who
sent a letter of recommendation on behalf of Einstein in late 1911 when
Einstein applied for a position at his old university (ETH) in Zurich. In
the letter written by Poincaré he had the following to say about Einstein:

”Einstein is one of the most original minds that I have known; despite
his youth he has already achieved a very honorable rank among the
foremost scholars of our time. What we can, above all, admire in him in

particular is the facility with which he adapts himself to new concepts
and draws all all the consequences from them. He does not remain
attached to classical principles, and, when presented with a problem in
physics, is prompt to envision all the possibilities. This translates itself
immediately in his mind by the prediction of new phenomena, which can
be verified by experiments.

...

The role of mathematical physics is to ask questions; it is only
experience that can answer them. The future will show, more and more,
the worth of Einstein, and the university which is able to capture this
young master is certain to gain much honor from this operation.” (15)

One of the more fundamental differences between Poincaré's theory and
Einstein's concerns the form of a light-pulse for observers at rest and
observers in motion. For Poincaré a light-pulse that is spherical for an
observer at rest with respect to the ether is actually an elongated
ellipsoid for all other observers in inertial motion. For Einstein; on the
other hand, a spherical light-pulse actually has a spherical form for all
inertial observers. And from that you get quite notable differences of
defintions with the predictions.

Another difference; concerning the years that went on as Poincaré and
Einstein continued their work on relativity, was the choice of space-
time. Now one of the consequences of using the convention of either
Minkowski or Galilei space-time comes from the fact that the geometry
of phenomenal space is set by this choice and the spatial geometry in
both of the given space-times is that of Euclid. Poincaré knew of this
problem, but he didn't understand that his roots in pre-relativist physics
guided him erronously. He began with the choice of the wrong space-
time for his work.

Poincaré did not feel his own approach, which involves the adoption of
Galilei space-time, to be less promising in 1912 than the Einstein-
Minkowski alternative, which involves the adoption of Minkowski

spacetime. Since Einstein's general relativity (1915) is incompatible
with Galilei space-time and compatible with Minkowski spacetime (as
the tangent space, valid for any infinitesimal patch of curved spacetime):
Poincaré (in retrospect) chose his spacetime unwisely.

He tried to preserve too much of the old and therefore he did not manage
to formulate a complete theory; or even successfully show the physical
revelation, behind doing away with the ether, not even when his own
work showed that it was unobservable. This is why he; in his Palermo
paper, talked about spherical electrons without explicitly mentioning
time dilation.

As Darrigol wrote on Poincaré's actual work (not metaphysical
pondering of all possibilities):

”Exclusive focus on the formal and empirical content of relativity theory
(the Lorentz group and covariance properties) has led some of them to
ignore the difference between Poincare’s and Einstein’s concepts of
space and time, while nationalism, anti-Semitism, or esprit d’Ecole
induced others to read much more into Poincare´’s text than is really
there. For instance, it has been claimed that Poincare´ had the second
principle of relativity theory on the basis of his having written in 1898
that the astronomer [who dates stellar events in light-years] has begun
by supposing that light has a constant velocity and, in particular, that its
velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which
no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. . . . The postulate
conforms to the principle of sufficient reason and has been accepted by
everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new
rule for the investigation of simultaneity. It is clear from the context that
Poincare meant here to apply the postulate only in an etherbound
Frame.” (16)

Let's continue with Bjerknes comments:

”Since we wish to discuss the science, the Physics, as opposed to the
Metaphysics of Poincare and Einstein, then we must state that inertial

reference frames do not exist in nature. In order to arrive at a physical
theory, rather than a Metaphysical definition, Poincare was obliged to
define that which constitutes a frame of reference. As was customary,
and as Einstein has repeatedly done, Poincare referred to the fixed stars
and to the ether. Both Einstein and his friends, including Pauli, referred
to Lorentz' ether as the basis of Special Relativity, as I have long ago
proven (see The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, pp.1958-1967
).”

Inertial reference frames do not exist in nature?!

The only sense I can make of this confused word salad is that reference
frames (inertial or not) are obviously concepts not physical things. Why
Bjerknes felt compelled to point it out in a debate on theoretical physics
is beyond me though. Furthemore, even if we confine ourselves to just
inertial reference frames, then you still don't need to refer to the stars (or
the ether: even if it existed) to handle Newtonian mechanics: since a
frame is inertial if Newton's 2nd law applies. The only insufficiency
comes from trying to reconcile Newtonian mechanics and Galilean
relativity with Maxwell's equations. The problem is that Maxwell's
equations appear to require a unique reference frame, but that still
wouldn't make otherwise inertial frames non-inertial. It is the search for
a unique reference frame, not an inertial one, which notably occupied
the minds of those searching for a classical ether.

"Einstein's 1905 paper, plagiarized from Poincare, is based not upon
absolute Minkowski Space-Time (a physically contradicted delusion),
nor upon Einstein's 1920 statement that a state of rest, a given specific
set of coordinates of space representing the vacuum, cannot be assigned
to the ether, but is instead premised upon Lorentz' quiescent ether; and
Einstein's 1905 paper specifically refers to "rest" and "resting
coordinates" as opposed to "motion" and "moving systems" of
coordinates, just as did Poincare's and Lorentz' and Larmor's prior
works."

Most of the above babbling has been addressed thoroughly in my

previous replies to Bjerknes, which he has yet again failed to counter
on-point. Not surprisingly Bjerknes is wrong yet again to imply that
Einstein was essentially referring to an ether when he mentions "resting
coordinates", because Einstein made it clear he was not talking about an
ether. Resting coordinates are simply an arbitrary choice of resting
frame for a given observer with no implication of an ether whatsoever.
Einstein was perhaps the first to at least demonstrate (i.e show through
the use of the scientific method) that the ether; if it exists, is essentially
physically undetectable at least in the context of the flat space of SR
(rather than simply suspecting possibilities of it being undetectable
thorugh philosophical musings).

"Here again it is shown that Einstein's theory is a subset of Poincare's
in that Poincare renders the PoR a scientific as well as a Metaphysical
principle, and Einstein merely parrots the Metaphysical content of the
principle. Though there were different methods of defining an inertial
frame of reference, for example Ludwig Lange's, the method most likely
to be understood at the time was to make reference to either a quiescent
ether or the fixed stars."

And yet more nonsense. Once again: this defines a unique reference
frame not simply an inertial reference frame. The whole point about
inertial reference frames is that they are not unique, but that the laws of
physics are nonetheless still the same.

"Space-Time" is a Metaphysical concept, one Einstein initially opposed.
As Prof. Winterberg has correctly stated, "Space-Time" has never been
measured in a laboratory, is physically contradicted, and all
laboratories are three dimensional."

And yet... "Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity
at a Personal Scale". (17)

Bjerknes is now shifting to an attempt to debunk space-time in general.
One can object all one wants to about the words used to describe general
relativity. But what ultimately matters is the mathematics, because the

mathematics is what makes the predictions and the mathematics works.
It makes predictions which experiments verify and no competing theory
has been able to duplicate all those verified predictions. Furthermore: no
experiments have produced results which contradict the predictions of
general relativity either.

"Einstein's ether of 1920 is a Metaphysical and numerological delusion,
not a scientific theory, on that point I will agree with the necessary
conclusions to be drawn from the sophistry of the Jewish propagandist
"Lionaxe.""

The expected; but sad, thing is that Bjerknes, while putting much effort
into writing sensationalistic material on relativity doesn’t have a basic
understanding of it. On this one I'm going to quote myself from the
second rebuttal I made to Bjerknes:

"Besides the aether problem persisting within Poincaré’s explorative
works: he also persisted with holding a difference between the effect of
contraction of moving bodies, along the direction of relative motion,
and the notion of relativity of simultaneity, which follows from the idea
of a local time.


And concerning the ”necessity of the Ether” argument above, Bjerknes
sidesteps the entire problematic features of preferred inertial frames
during the Poincaré/Lorentz era (and all of the given arguments
demonstrating Bjerknes claims to be incorrect) with something
completely different and having an equally different domain of
application when Einstein later used the word ”ether”. It was indeed
around 1920, presumably in response to his personal friendship and
admiration for Lorentz, where Einstein began to use the word "ether" in
his writings. But it referred to the metric field of general relativity."

It was not in any sense a privileged frame of reference, it was simply a
referral to the metric field of GR.

”So there you have it, the Jewish propagandist "Lionaxe" is proven
wrong on each and every point related to Einstein's plagiarism.”

Ironically: this is stated by Bjerknes after he has ignored nearly all the
corrections to his assumptions and assertions that I offered in my
previous rebuttals and after he had only revisited a precious few (albeit
misrepresented what I had effectively clarified in the process). His own
sources do not agree with him, his grasp of science is all but non-
existant and he has once again failed not only to refute my previous
replies point-by-point (he ignored pretty much all of them) but to even
refute even a single given point.

References

(1)

http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/01/christopher-jon-

bjerknes-debacle.html

(2)

http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/02/christopher-jon-

bjerkens-debacle-part-2.html

(3) http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com/ (date on the article is
Friday, October 29, 2010)
(4)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/einstein_relativity/

(5) ”How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?” - Phys.Usp.
47 (2004) 607-621; Usp.Fiz.Nauk 174 (2004) 663-678
(

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405075

)

(6) ”Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory” - A.A Logunov. M.: Nauka,
2005. (Translated by G. Pontecorvo and V.O. Soloviev. Edited by V.A.
Petrov) (

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077

)

(7) Russell McCormmach, 1970, “H. A. Lorentz and the
Electromagnetic View of Nature”, Isis, Vol. 61, No. 4

(8) H. Poincaré, "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", St.
Louis Congress, 1904, Ref. [”Physics for a New Century”.
Papers presented at the 1904 St. Louis Congress, a compilation
selected by Katherine R. Sopka, Tomash Publishers, American
Institute of Physics, 1986.] p. 281.

(9) H. Poincaré, 1968, “La science et l’hypothèse”, chapter 10

of the french edition, “Les théories de la physique moderne”,
Champs, Flammarion.

(10) H. Poincaré, ”Sur la dynamique de l’electron”, Compt.
Rend. Acad. Sci. 140, 1904 (1915).

(11) Poincaré, H. (1900a) “Sur les relations entre la physique
expérimentale et la physique mathématique,” Revue génerale des
sciences pures et appliquées, 21, pp 1163.
(12) Poincaré, H. (1902) "La science et l’hypothése" (Paris:
Flammarion); revised edition 1968. Based on the one edited by Gustave
Le Bon, 1917.
(13) J. Levy, “Basic concepts for a fundamental aether theory”, in
“Ether space-time and cosmology”, Vol. 1, Michael Duffy and Joseph
Levy, Editors and ArXiv Physics/0604207.
(14) Quoted in: J. Mehra, ”The Historical Origin of the Special Theory
of Relativity” in "The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics", Vol. 1,
World Scientific, Singapore 2001, p. 226.
(15) Carl Seelig, 1956, ”Albert Einstein : A Documentary Biography”,
Staples Press: London
(16) Oliver Darrigol, 2004, “The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré
Connection”,

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/430652

(17)

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-

atomic-clock_092310.cfm

Posted 23rd November 2010 by Karl Radl